heslin_2005_

Journal of Organizational Behavior

J. Organiz. Behav. 26, 113136 (2005)

Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/job.270

Conceptualizing and evaluatingcareer success

PETER A. HESLIN*

Cox School of Business, Southern Methodist University, Dallas, Texas, U.S.A.

Summary Within the vast literature on the antecedents of career success, the success criterion has gen-erally been operationalized in a rather deficient manner. Several avenues for improving theconceptualization and measurement of both objective and subjective career success are iden-tified. Paramount among these is the need for greater sensitivity to the criteria that study par-ticipants, in different contexts, use to construe and judge their career success. This paperillustrates that contextual and individual factors are likely to be associated with the relativesalience of objective and subjective criteria of career success. Drawing on social comparisontheory, propositions are also offered about when self- and other-referent success criteria arelikely to be most salient. A broader research agenda addresses career success referent choice,organizational interventions, and potential cultural differences. This article maps out howfuture research can be more sensitive to how people actually do conceptualize and evaluatetheir own career success. Copyright # 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Introduction

Career success has long been a construct of considerable interest to career scholars (e.g., Parsons,

1909; Hughes, 1958) and practitioners (e.g., Robbins, 2003; Ziglar, 1997), not to mention the multi-

tude of individuals engaged in a career (Hall, 1976, 2002). The career literature is replete with theories

(e.g., Krumboltz, 1994), models (e.g., Holland, 1997), and accounts of career intervention programs

(e.g., Chartrand & Rose, 1996) aimed at predicting and ultimately facilitating career success. It is also

an important outcome in many areas of career scholarship, such as those pertaining to career explora-

tion (Blustein, 1997) and decision making (Hartung & Blustein, 2002). In addition, a multitude of stu-

dies have investigated how variables such as gender (e.g., Lyness & Thompson, 2000), personality

(e.g., Seibert & Kraimer, 2001), education (e.g., Judge, Cable, Boudreau, & Bretz, 1995), mentoring

relationships (e.g., Peluchette & Jeanquart, 2000), and career tactics (Judge & Bretz, 1994) are empiri-

cally related to subsequent career success.

Received 29 July 2003Copyright # 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Revised 11 December 2003

Accepted 26 April 2004

* Correspondence to: Peter A. Heslin, Cox School of Business, Southern Methodist University, Box 750333, Dallas, TX 75275-0333, U.S.A. E-mail: [email protected]

By contrast, curiously little scholarly attention has been devoted to analyzing the nature of career

success (Greenhaus, 2003; Heslin, 2003a; Sturges, 1999). One framework for categorizing how

career success has been operationalized is Everett Hughes (1937, 1958) theoretical distinction

between the objective and the subjective career. Specifically, Hughes defined the objective career

as directly observable, measurable, and verifiable by an impartial third party, while the subjective

career is only experienced directly by the person engaged in her or his career. Thus, objective career

success is defined by verifiable attainments, such as pay, promotions, and occupational status, which

have long been considered the hallmarks of career success across a wide range of societies

(Nicholson, 2000). Indeed, Arthur and Rousseau (1996) found that more than 75 per cent of the

career-related articles published in major interdisciplinary journals between 1980 and 1994 focused

on objective perspectives.

Subjective career success is defined by an individuals reactions to his or her unfolding career

experiences (Hughes, 1937, 1958). Recognition of the importance of subjective success dates back

at least to Thorndikes (1934) operationalization of career success as job satisfaction, as well as the

objective criteria of earnings and job status. Although objective criteria have dominated much of the

subsequent career success literature, subjective criteria have increasingly been adopted within career

success research over the last decade (Greenhaus, 2003; Hall, 2002). However, the validity of these

subjective career success measurements has ultimately been bounded by the extent to which they cap-

ture the phenomenological meaning of career success to those surveyed.

This paper begins by briefly reviewing the most common approaches to assessing both objective and

subjective career success. Rather than attempting an exhaustive survey of the career success literature,

we provide exemplars that direct attention to some strengths and limitations in the way that objective

and subjective success have been operationalized, together with some suggestions for improved

measurement.

Four implicit assumptions that are prevalent in much of the career success literature are identified.

The first is that objective outcomes (e.g., pay and promotions) are adequate proxies for success, pre-

sumably even beyond the managerial and professional contexts in which most career success

research has been conducted (Greenhaus, 2003; Sullivan, 1999). The second related presumption

is that job and career satisfaction (i.e., Greenhaus, Parasuraman, & Wormley, 1990) adequately cap-

ture the breadth of dimensions upon which people react to their careers. Third is the inherent assump-

tion that people are similar in their concern about the success they attain in the objective, compared

to subjective domain. Finally, the career success literature largely presumes that people concep-

tualize and evaluate their career success only relative to self-referent criteria, such as their career

aspirations.

This paper strives to encourage career scholars to transcend each of these four assumptions. This is

done by first highlighting the importance of discovering objective metrics that are meaningful within

particular career contexts beyond the managerial and professional spheres. Second, we show that peo-

ple conceptualize and evaluate their career success in realms (e.g., work-life balance, contribution,

fulfillment) that go beyond how subjective career success has typically been conceptualized and mea-

sured. Third, in an attempt to address the paucity of theory about how different people conceptualize

their career success, we identify some potential correlates of when objective versus subjective criteria

of success are likely to be most salient. Fourth, drawing on social comparison theory (Festinger, 1954),

we demonstrate that people use other-referent as well as self-referent criteria to evaluate their career

success. Other-referent success explains unique variance in overall subjective career success (Heslin,

2003a). Thus, we use relevant theory and research to suggest when self- and other-referent success

criteria are each most likely to be salient. Empirical tests of these propositions may ultimately lead

to improvements in the way career success is typically conceptualized and measured in the extant lit-

erature, as reviewed next.

114 P. A. HESLIN

Copyright # 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 26, 113136 (2005)

Operationalizations of Objective and Subjective Success

Objective criteria

Salary (Thorndike, 1934), salary growth (Hilton & Dill, 1962) and promotions (Thorndike, 1963) are

the most widely used and readily accessible indicators of career success (Hall, 1976, 2002). These

objective measures can have the substantial benefits of being readily available from existing records,

standardized (at least within firms), and efficient to collect. They are free from self-serving and

common-method variance, if collected by means other than self-report. They are valued by many peo-

ple, as anecdotally reflected by Zig Ziglars (1997) quip that: Folks who say they dont care about

money will probably lie about other things too! Finally, both Hall and Chandler (this issue), as well

as Nicholson and de Waal Andrews (this issue), discuss how objective attainments can, under certain

circumstances, lead to subjective career success.

Organizational changes over the last two decades have, however, reduced the relevance of some

traditional objective indicants of career success. For instance, trends such as organizational delayering,

downsizing, and outsourcing have lessened the scope (Evans, Gunz, & Jalland, 1997) and relative

desirability (Hall, 2002; Reitman & Schneer, 2003) of hierarchical progression through promotion.

This applies even to MBA graduates; those who have earned the degree widely promoted as the cre-

dential for access to a successful managerial career, characterized by upward mobility on a corporate

ladder (Brousseau, Driver, Eneroth, & Larsson, 1996). For instance, a recent survey of the managerial

careers of 116 MBA graduates over a 13-year period revealed that two-thirds of them had not followed

this prototypical managerial career path (Reitman & Schneer, 2003). This study also found that those

who had pursued a more protean managerial career had not paid a price in terms of their income, career

satisfaction, or job security. In general, an increasing number of former professionals, managers, and

even senior corporate officers are choosing to become contractors and consultants (Cappelli, 1999;

Inkson, Heising, & Rousseau, 2001): generic titles that lack the clear occupational status and rank that

pertained to their previous organizational positions.

Objective criteria of career success are also liable to being both contaminated, in that they are affected

by factors that are beyond an individuals control, as well as deficient (Campbell, Dunnette, Lawler, &

Weick, 1970), in that they do not capture relevant facets of the focal construct. Sources of contamination

in the objective success of global managers, for instance, are illustrated by Hollenbeck and McCalls

(2003) observation that countries differ substantially in their power structures, taxation systems, eco-

nomic and social stratification, markers of status, and norms of saving. Even within societies, the objec-

tive success experienced by those such as nurses, plumbers and taxi drivers will similarly be strongly

affected by factors such as occupational pay norms, labor market conditions, and competition: factors

which change independently of the actions of an individual engaged in one of these occupations. More-

over, as Thorndike (1963) observed, objective criteria of career success have limited meaning in the

many jobs where pay and promotions are institutionalized, such as in the civil service and the military.

The deficiency of traditional objective criteria, such as pay and promotions, stems from the fact that

these are not the only objective outcomes that people seek from their careers. For instance, both school

teachers (Parsons, 2002) and academic mentors (e.g., McGrath, 2003) often frame their career success

in terms of hard data on the learning and other attainments of their students and proteges. Similarly, bus

and taxi drivers conceivably base their career success on their years of driving without an accident,

industrial designers on e-mails of peer recognition for their creativity, and doctors on the proportion

of emergency patients lives they save. Even when continual attainment of such objective outcomes

does not lead to an increase in pay, promotions, occupational status, or rank, their value as objective

indicants of career success is not necessarily diminished.

CONCEPTUALIZING AND EVALUATING CAREER SUCCESS 115


Many people also desire less tangible, subjective outcomes such as work-life balance (Finegold &

Mohrman, 2001), as well as a sense of meaning (Wrzesniewski, 2002), purpose (Cochran, 1990), trans-

cendence (Dobrow, 2003), and contribution (Hall & Chandler, this issue) from their work. Friedman

and Greenhaus (2000) had more than 800 business professionals indicate the relative importance of 15

potential indicators of their career success. A factor analysis revealed five dimensions of the meaning

of career success: status, time for self, challenge, security, and social. With the exception of status,

these results reveal a considerable emphasis on subjective career success criteria that go beyond the

objective outcomes of prestige, power, money, and advancement.

Receiving high pay and promotions also do not necessarily make people feel proud or successful

(Hall, 2002; Korman, Wittig-Berman, & Lang, 1981; Schein, 1978). In fact, they can cause work and

personal alienation (Burke, 1999), as well as depressive reactions. Bandura (1997) described how

newly appointed managers who do not delegate adequately can soon become overwhelmed and

depressed, potentially leading to both subjective and objective career failure. Such evidence that sub-

jective success is not necessarily a function of objective attainments highlights the importance of learn-

ing more about the nature of subjective career success, as well as the causal relationship between

different objective and subjective career outcomes.1

Indeed, the potential deficiency of objective success criteria has long been recognized. For example,

40 years ago Hilton and Dill (1962, p. 163) observed that the shortcomings of salary as a measure of

mans progress are well known. Thus, it is puzzling that salary and promotions continue to be applied

as the sole criteria of career success in many studies (e.g., Chenevert & Tremblay, 2002; Hurley &

Sonnenfeld, 1998; Judiesch & Lyness, 1999; Lyness & Thompson, 2000). The potential deficiencies

in objective success measurement may be reduced by future research that conceptualizes and assesses

objective success in a manner that is guided by the career concerns and status hierarchies that char-

acterize particular career contexts. Another more commonly adopted method of dealing with the defi-

ciency of objective criteria is to measure subjective career success, in conjunction with objective

attainments.

Subjective criteria

Schein (1978) argues that it is important to determine if people considered to have hierarchical and

financial success are also satisfied with their career. Unlike objective success criteria, subjective mea-

sures may detect important career outcomes that are not readily assessable from personnel records or

by expert raters (Gattiker & Larwood, 1988).

Subjective career success is most commonly operationalized as either job or career satisfaction.

Judge, Higgins, Thoresen, and Barrick (1999) argue that as individuals who are dissatisfied with many

aspects of their jobs are unlikely to consider their careers to be successful, job satisfaction is the most

salient aspect of subjective career success. Many other studies (e.g., Boudreau, Boswell, & Judge,

2001; Judge & Bretz, 1994; Judge et al., 1995; Murrell, Frieze, & Olson, 1996; Tsui & Gutek,

1984) have also used job satisfaction as a proxy for subjective career success.

One limitation of doing so is that a person who thinks they have a highly successful career does not

necessarily consider it to be less successful if they begin a job that they find dissatisfying. Second, a

person could be highly satisfied with their current job, though dissatisfied with the career attainments

which preceded it. Third, a gratifying job with limited prospects for future career opportunities could

invoke minimal feelings of career success. Fourth, a person may conversely hate what they are doing

1Discussion of this latter issue is beyond the scope of the present paper, though is taken up from several different perspectives byArthur et al. (this issue), Hall and Chandler (this issue), and Nicholson and de Waal Andrews (this issue).

116 P. A. HESLIN


but be happy with the state of their career because of the prospects it brings (Heslin, 2003a). For

instance, Wilensky (1960) described how graduate students defer gratification by working long hours

for little direct compensation, in the hope of being well rewarded following graduation. Finally, high

job satisfaction does not necessarily lead to subjective career success when it exacts a high toll in terms

of health, family relationships, or other salient personal values.

Subjective career success thus includes reactions to actual and anticipated career-related attainments

across (a) a broader time frame than ones immediate job satisfaction (Greenhaus, Callanan, &

Godshalk, 2000), as well as (b) a wider range of outcomes, such as a sense of identity (Law, Meijers,

& Wijers, 2002), purpose (Cochran, 1990), and work-life balance (Finegold & Mohrman, 2001).

Although job satisfaction may contribute to subjective career success, they are conceptually distinct

constructs that are not necessarily related. It follows that future research should avoid adopting job

satisfaction as a sole proxy for subjective career success.

Career satisfaction is most often assessed using the widely adopted (e.g., Boudreau et al., 2001;

Judge et al., 1995; Seibert & Kraimer, 2001) career satisfaction scale developed by Greenhaus et al.

(1990). Although such standardized measures generally have acceptable levels of internal consistency,

such characteristics are not necessarily sufficient to validly assess each respondents subjective career

success. For example, standardized scales with items measuring satisfaction with hierarchical success

(e.g., Peluchette & Jeanquart, 2000) or advancement (e.g., Greenhaus et al., 1990) are likely to be of

limited relevance to the increasing number of people who work on a contract basis (Inkson et al.,

2001), run their own small business (Tullar, 2001), value other features of their career (e.g., service

and companionship) much more highly (Aronsson, Bejerot, & Haerenstam, 1999), or are contentedly

career plateaued (Slocum, Cron, Hansen, & Rawlings, 1985). Assessing superfluous, irrelevant con-

structs is problematic owing to the inflation of the error within the resulting measurements of subjec-

tive career success. Thus, more needs to be understood about how to balance the imperatives to assess

only what really matters to the person being surveyed, while also making efficient and comparable

measurements.

Improving subjective career success measurement

Three avenues for improving the conceptualization and measurement of subjective career success are

(a) drawing upon research into what employees want, (b) paying greater attention to how people in

different career contexts conceptualize their career success, and (c) adopting more qualitative methods.

One source of insight for the first avenue is Cangemi and Guttschalks (1986) discovery that, based on

a survey of 35 000 employees, what employees most wanted (i.e., full appreciation for work done, feel-

ing in on things, and sympathetic understanding of personal problems) differed substantially from

what supervisors discerned that their employees most desired (i.e., money). Another example of

research on what people want is Finegold and Mohrmans (2001) finding that among 4500 knowledge

workers and managers from eight countries, work-life balance was rated as the most important out of

the many facets of a career. The failure of most career success studies to include even a single item

assessing work-life balance highlights how considering research on what people want could poten-

tially alter the extant evidence about the antecedents of subjective career success.

The second, contextual avenue is foreshadowed by a recent program of theorizing, research and

symposia presentations, regarding how career success is conceptualized by different populations.

These include professionals transitioning to working part-time (Lee & Dohring, 2003), people with

a global career (Hollenbeck & McCall, 2003), young classical musicians (Dobrow, 2003), people

working in not-for-profit organizations (Steinbereithner, 2003), and CEOs (Heslin, 2003b). An exam-

ple of how career context can be associated with subtle differences in the criteria people use to evaluate



their career success is illustrated by a survey of 1481 industrial/organizational (I/O) psychologists by

Brooks, Grauer, Thornbury, and Highhouse (2003). This study found that compared to I/O psychology

academics (i.e., those working in universities), I/O psychological practitioners reported valuing

affiliation, structure, and money significantly more, though autonomy and science to a lesser extent

than their academic counterparts. This systematic within-profession variation in relative concern with

the objective criteria of money highlights the importance of sensitivity to sub-population differences in

the criteria adopted for judging career success.

Third, Arthur et al. (this issue) observed a paucity of qualitative career success research within the

leading management and psychological journals over the last decade. Thus, there appears to be plenty

of scope for more systematic, qualitative studies of how people making their careers in different con-

texts conceptualize their career success. This approach to improving the measurement of career suc-

cess is exemplified by Juntunen et al.s (2001) in-depth interviews regarding the meaning of career

success to 18 Northern Plains American Indians. Evidence of the communitarian construal of career

success among this population, in which success is largely measured in terms of contribution to the

well-being of others, is exemplified by the following two statements by study participants:

To be successful, I believe, is going back to where you were raised to help the people that are there.

(p. 278)

I make flutes for [the young kids] so they can learn. I did 250 last year for the kids. . . . Out of allthem kids, maybe one will be a flute player and carry on a tradition. If I can get this tradition going

with some of the young people . . . then Im happy its a success. (p. 279)

Such findings illustrate how qualitative research may reveal hitherto largely neglected facets (e.g.,

societal contribution) of subjective career success (see also Hall & Chandler, this issue).

In summary, several options for improving the measurement of objective and subjective success

have been suggested. It has been shown that some people construe their career success in subjective

ways that transcend the objective criteria that have dominated the extant literature (Greenhaus, 2003;

Hall, 2002). Indeed, the wide range of success criteria that different people use highlights an oppor-

tunity to explore how theory and research may suggest when particular types of success criteria are

likely to be most salient. The potential utility of doing so is underscored by the observation that the

widespread uncritical and atheoretical use of narrow measures of career success has probably con-

strained the scope and validity of career success research (Arthur et al., this issue). One potential

option for addressing this theoretical gap in the literature is to investigate when salient others expecta-

tions and outcomes are likely to influence how people conceptualize their career success.

Self- and Other-Referent Career Success

Whether career attainments lead people to experience career success is likely to depend upon the stan-

dards against which they are evaluated. Career outcomes may be evaluated relative to personal stan-

dards (i.e., self-referent criteria), or the attainments and expectations of others (i.e., other-referent

criteria).

Self-referent success criteria generally reflect an individuals career-related standards and aspira-

tions. By contrast, other-referent criteria involve comparisons with others, such as whether one is paid

more or less than the industry average or a colleague who performs a similar role in the same or another

organization (Goodman, 1974). In those commonly encountered cases in which there is a range of

118 P. A. HESLIN


potential referents, career success judgments may vary substantially depending upon which are chosen

as the basis for comparison (Bandura, 1986; Heath, Larrick, & Wen, 1999; Wood, 1989).

Self-referent success criteria

Gattiker and Larwood (1988) argue that subjective career success criteria reflect personal standards

and preferences, such as whether an individual most prefers to have solitude or social stimulation.

Self-referent criteria may also pertain to objective criteria, such as a career goal to earn a salary of

at least $100k per annum by the age of 30. Regardless of what other people achieve, a person who

is highly committed to such an aspiration is liable to experience career success if it is realized, while

potentially feeling that their career is not successful if this goal is not attained. Instances when people

value self-satisfaction from acting in accordance with their personal standards even more highly than

material rewards (Bandura, 1997; Hall, 2002) further highlight the importance of considering self-

referent subjective success.

Self-report outcome measures in the career success literature have been almost exclusively self-

referential, with two identified notable exceptions. One is Lawrences (1984) measure of the extent

to which respondents feel that their careers are on schedule, ahead of schedule, or behind schedule,

relative to their peers. The other exception is two items in Turban and Doughertys (1994) 4-item mea-

sure that assesses perceived career success relative to the other-referent criteria of your co-workers?,

and the feelings of significant others? Aside from these studies, does the relative absence of other-

referent criteria in the career success literature mean that people rarely evaluate their career with refer-

ence to the expectations and attainments of other people?

Other-referent success criteria

If you compare yourself with others you may become vain or bitter, for always there will be greater

and lesser persons than yourself. (Desiderata)

The motivational and affective perils of comparing oneself to others have been well documented

(e.g., see Dweck, 1999). Theory and research suggest, however, that people nonetheless often evaluate

their career success relative to the outcomes achieved by other people. Social comparison theory (Fes-

tinger, 1954) states that (a) individuals are motivated to evaluate the outcomes they attain, and (b)

when objective information concerning the adequacy of their actions and outcomes is not available,

they will attempt to obtain such information by comparing their actions and outcomes to those of other

similar people. Several hundred studies have validated and extended these basic premises of social

comparison theory (Suls & Wheeler, 2000). Within organizational settings, Mumford (1983) argues

that reinforcement contingencies, such as promotions or raises, provide a powerful incentive for indi-

viduals to regularly engage in social comparisons with their peers, especially when vague criteria are

used for allocating them. Similarly, the substantial evidence that people often act in the manner pre-

dicted by Adams (1965) equity theory (e.g., Griffeth & Gaertner, 2001; Janssen, 2001) further shows

that individuals use the outcomes of other people as referent points when evaluating their work-related

outcomes.

Schein (1990) provides two anecdotes of how social comparisons operate in evaluating career suc-

cess. In the first, an entrepreneur who made two million dollars felt like a failure because his friends all

owned 300-million-dollar companies. In the second example, another person who leveled off in middle

management felt very successful because he went so far beyond the level his father attained. While

there is a literature on the use of other referents when evaluating pay satisfaction (e.g., Goodman,

1974; Toh & DeNisi, 2003), it has generally neither ventured beyond satisfaction with the fiscal aspect

of career success, nor substantially influenced the literature in which career success is the criterion



measure. Thus, greater scholarly attention appears warranted to the potentially social comparative nat-

ure of how people construe and assess their overall career success.

Heslin (2003a) explored the use of other-referent criteria by 71 part-time MBA students at a

Canadian university. Participants were asked to evaluate their career success and to be specific about

how they know the extent to which their career is successful. Independent ratings of their written

responses revealed that 68 per cent of participants used other-referent criteria, such as: I am paid rela-

tively well for my peer group, Others younger than me have done better career-wise, and My super-

visors dont appreciate my above-average performance! A majority of participants used some other-

referent criteria, and 39 per cent of all the criteria generated were other-referent. This study also exam-

ined the relationship between career success relative to both self-referent and other-referent criteria.

Self-referent success was measured using a slightly modified version of Greenhaus et al.s (1990)

widely used career satisfaction scale (e.g., How satisfied are you with the income you have attained,

relative to your career aspirations?; How satisfied are you with the autonomy you have attained, rela-

tive to your career aspirations?). Other-referent success was measured with items that were identical,

except each item surveyed perceived success relative to your peers rather than relative to your career

aspirations. The results were that ratings of other-referent success accounted for an additional 12 per

cent of variance in ratings of overall subjective career success, when career success relative to self-

referent criteria was held constant. Thus, other-referent success appears to be a potentially important,

albeit largely neglected facet of subjective career success.

Objective other-referent success criteria are exemplified by salary surveys, mean time to promotion

data, and descriptions of successful career behaviors (e.g., Inkson et al., 2001; Zabusky & Barley,

1996). Such criteria provide referent points for assessing whether ones career is on schedule relative

to ones age-peers, which might be a facet of other-referent career success. For instance, based on the

self-reports of 245 managers (aged 2266 years) from a large corporation, Lawrence (1984) found that

perceptions of being behind, on, or ahead of schedule were related to career satisfaction, even when

their perceptions of being ahead or behind time were incorrect.

Other-referent career success criteria include, but extend beyond, comparing oneself to the

attainments of others. They can also encompass our internalization of other peoples expectations. For

instance, Gattiker and Larwood (1988) note that: what we think that our families think can determine

how satisfied we are with our careers (p. 572, italics in original). Instances in which people choose to

follow a long-standing family tradition of working in a particular profession (e.g., law, medicine, or

plumbing), from among the wide range of options available to them, may reflect a combination of social

learning and adopting the expectations of salient others as a criterion of career success (Krumboltz,

1994).

In summary, there is substantial theoretical and empirical reason to believe that people evaluate their

objective and subjective career outcomes relative to other-referent, as well as self-referent criteria. In

addition, there is preliminary evidence that evaluating other-referent career success provides unique

information about subjective career success that has probably not been captured by most measures of

this construct within the extant literature. These observations provide a basis for beginning to theorize

about when different types of subjective career success criteria will be most salient.

Types of Subjective Career Success Criteria

Our argument that people evaluate their career success using self-referent and other-referent criteria,

drawn from both the objective and subjective domains, is illustrated in Table 1. This table makes

120 P. A. HESLIN


explicit that subjective career success encompasses reactions to both the objective (e.g., pay) and sub-

jective (e.g., fulfillment) facets of ones career. It also highlights how, at any given point in the unfold-

ing of a career, self- and other-referent criteria can be rather different. Instances when a persons

satisfaction with her bonus changes dramatically upon hearing about the bonus received by her peers,

as well as when an individual feels diminished upon discovering his parents attitude toward his career,

exemplify the potential difference between self- and other-referent criteria of success.

Table 1 also illustrates some potential correlates of when each of these four types of success criteria

is likely to be most salient. The variables suggested are not intended to be exhaustive, but rather merely

indicative of when different types of criteria may figure most prominently in how people evaluate their

career success. Future research may identify and explore many others.

As the standards people use to evaluate their experiences and attainments reflect the reciprocal influ-

ence of both contextual and individual factors (Bandura, 1986, 1997), we first theorize about the poten-

tial role of two contextual factors: whether the career is being pursued in a winner-take-all market

(Frank & Cook, 1995), as well as the organizational culture (Kerr & Slocum, 1987) in which a person

is working. Two individual factors we discuss are work orientation (Wrzesniewski, McCauley, Rozin,

& Schwartz, 1997) and goal orientation (Dweck & Elliott, 1983). Finally, we suggest that whether a

person has a linear or non-linear career type (Brousseau et al., 1996)a variable that embodies the

inherent interaction between individual and contextual exigenciesmay influence when the different

types of criteria outlined in Table 1 are most salient.

Winner-take-all markets

Frank and Cook (1995) argue that more and more individuals are being drawn to the pursuit of a lim-

ited number of superstar positions in winner-take-all markets. These markets are characterized by

huge rewards for high performance, relative to the performance exhibited by other people. For

instance, Olympic gold medals are awarded for outperforming other contenders, rather than based

on absolute achievements. The other defining characteristic of winner-take-all markets is that prizes

tend to be allocated to a few top performers, with small differences in talent or effort resulting in mas-

sive differences in income and other rewards. For instance, gold medal winners (e.g., Mary Lou Retton

Table 1. Four types of subjective success criteria

Objective domain Subjective domain

Self-referent domain 1. Objective/self-referent 2. Subjective/self-referentExamples: Examples: My financial and promotion aspirations My goals for work-life balance

and fulfilmentPotential correlate: Potential correlates: A market culture A calling orientation

A non-linear careerOther-referent domain 3. Objective/other-referent 4. Subjective/other-referent

Examples: Examples: My colleagues pay and my social My stimulation and fun, relative

standing to my peersPotential correlates: Potential correlate: A winner-take-all market A clan culture A job or career orientation



and Carl Lewis) often receive millions of dollars in product endorsements, while silver and bronze

medalists commonly receive few, if any endorsements, and their almost identical athletic performances

are soon forgotten.

Information technologies enabling millions of people to listen and watch only star artists and ath-

letes have, for many years, made the performing arts and professional sports winner-take-all markets.

However, intense global competition is substantially increasing the stakes of winning, relative to being

in second place, within many industries (e.g., software development, movie making, fashion, book

publishing, academe, consulting, law). Organizational fortunes in these markets are widely thought

to depend heavily on the performance of those occupying a few pivotal positions, such as the CEO,

chief counsel, or movie director. The rewards offered to the incumbents of such roles tend to be enor-

mous and far in excess of the rewards received by those who just miss out on such roles. Besides

increasing the already substantial disparity between the rich and the poor, Frank and Cook (1995)

argue that the slim prospect of becoming a wealthy star in one of these emerging winner-take-all mar-

kets is decreasing the number and talent of those interested in making a career in other less glamorous,

though socially important sectors, such as engineering, manufacturing, civil service, child care, and

teaching.

Despite these societal costs, Frank and Cook identify a range of psychological and social processes

likely to attract and retain participants in winner-take-all markets. Aspirants consistently and notor-

iously overestimate their chances of winning contests for highly prized occupational roles, such as

being a supermodel, a CEO, a pro-basketball player, or a Wall Street banker (Arnett, 2000; Weinstein,

1980). Cognitive limitations generally prevent people from learning about, remembering, and thus

aspiring to emulate any more than the few leading stars in any field of endeavor. Finally, people

can feel entrapped in winner-take-all markets. Failure to continually invest heavily in things they

believe will improve their chances of success (e.g., expensive clothes, luxury cars, cosmetic surgery,

steroid consumption, coaching) can seem tantamount to forgoing all they have already invested in

striving to become successful.

Social inducements to participate in winner-take-all markets include the conspicuously reported

massive financial rewards received by winners in their respective fields. Moreover, popular publica-

tions and television programs such as People magazine, Entertainment Weekly, and Lifestyles of the

Rich and Famous appear devoted to celebrating and propagating materialism, conspicuous consump-

tion, and exclusivity as criteria of success. Through social learning processes, such as role modeling

and symbolic encoding of desired career outcomes, people tend to personally adopt the values and

standards of those with whom they identify (Bandura, 1986, 1997). Thus, consumption of such star-

oriented media is liable to increase the salience of objective and other-referent criteria of career suc-

cess (e.g., ones income and status relative to ones referent group).

Even stronger inducements to value objective and other-referent success are likely to come from

personally participating in a winner-take-all market, via the mutually reinforcing mechanisms of

the attractionselectionattrition (ASA) cycle (Schneider, 1987; Schneider, Smith, & Paul, 2001),

and socialization (Trice & Beyer, 1993). Schneiders ASA model states that organizational members

are likely to be relatively homogeneous, insofar as they are the ones who were attracted to, chosen by,

and choose to remain with an organization, given its characteristic strategy, structure, culture, and

reward system. There is evidence that people choose organizations that fit their need structure. For

instance, Turban and Keon (1993) found that people with a high need for achievement choose to work

in organizations with individual incentive systems, rather than rewards based on seniority.

Following selection, organizations adopt socialization tactics to imbue newcomers with the values

and perspectives of the organization. Finally, newcomers who are not effectively socialized tend to be

dissatisfied and are unlikely to remain with an organization or within an industry (OReilly, Chatman,

& Caldwell, 1991; Trice & Beyer, 1993). Thus, conspicuous rewards allocated for excelling ones

122 P. A. HESLIN


peers, which are the hallmark of winner-take-all markets, are likely to be particularly salient to those

working within such markets.

Proposition 1: People working in winner-take-all markets use more objective and other-referent

criteria of career success than those who work in fields where rewards are more evenly distributed,

based on absolute rather than relative performance (see Table 1, quadrant 3).

Organizational culture

Even within industries and markets, differences in organizational culture may be associated with var-

iation in how people conceptualize their career success. This potential dynamic can be illustrated by

consideration of the prototypical market and clan organizational cultures studied by Kerr and Slocum

(1987).

Within a market culture, the relationship between the individual and the organization is contractual.

Mutual obligations are explicitly specified: in return for some level of quantifiable performance, indi-

viduals are given a commensurable and agreed level of financial reward. The other opportunities avail-

able to both individuals and organizations determine whether and under what terms periodic

employment contracts are renewed. Symbols of status and rank are not emphasized. Rather, a perfor-

mance-based reward system pays large bonuses for meeting or exceeding quantified performance tar-

gets. Little consideration is given to the qualitative aspects of performance, such as the long-term

consequences of the manner in which short-term results are achieved. Kerr and Slocum observed that

rather than promoting a feeling of membership in a social system, the market culture encourages a

strong sense of independence and individuality in which everyone pursues his or her own interests

(p. 103).

Clan cultures, by contrast, are characterized by a more fraternal and committed relationship

between the individual and the organization. Socialization and internalized values emphasize mutual

interests and the tacit understanding that required contributions to the organization may exceed con-

tractual agreements. In exchange for loyalty, senior managers in clan cultures show a greater concern

for individuals employment security and career development than is typical of market cultures. For

instance, promotion from within is much more common in clan cultures than in market cultures. Con-

sideration of qualitative facets of performance, such as how results are achieved, introduces a degree of

vagueness into the appraisal system. Compared to market cultures, financial bonuses are a small part of

total compensation, while rituals and patterns of interaction that signify and cultivate a persons sense

of belonging and status play an important role in clan cultures. For instance, the extensive collegial

network within clan cultures tends to generate a sense of interdependence between organizational

members, leading them to identify strongly with their peers, as well as their organization (Kerr &

Slocum, 1987).

Through the mutually reinforcing mechanisms of the ASA cycle and socialization, the quantitative

and financially oriented nature of market cultures means that they are likely to be inhabited by people

who primarily use objective criteria, especially pay, to evaluate their career success. By contrast, a

relatively greater concern with subjective criteria of career success could be expected in clan organi-

zational cultures. This is because within such cultures rich patterns of socialization and rituals cultivate

the importance of non-pecuniary career outcomes such as the sense of fraternity, meaning, and belong-

ing to an organization with a proud tradition and/or an important mission.

Organizational culture may also be associated with differences in the salience attached to self-refer-

ent versus other-referent criteria of career success. Social comparison theory (Festinger, 1954) empha-

sizes that when clear performance metrics are not available to help individuals evaluate their

accomplishments, they tend to evaluate themselves relative to the achievements of other people. A



corollary is that social comparisons are fostered by the availability of accessible, salient bases for peer

comparison (Festinger, 1954; Klein, 1997). Finally, in self-relevant domains, such as regarding ones

career status, close relationships with potential referents tend to foster social comparisons (Pemberton

& Sedikides, 2001; Tesser, 1980; Tesser, Millar, & Moore, 1988). Thus, the relatively vague perfor-

mance criteria, the clear symbols of relative rank and status, and the closeness between organizational

members within clan cultures is expected to foster a greater use of other-referent criteria of career suc-

cess than typically occurs within market cultures. By contrast, the explicit linkage of rewards to quan-

tifiable performance and the independence of organizational members within market cultures are both

expected to increase the emphasis individuals give to self-referent criteria when evaluating their career

success.

Proposition 2: In clan cultures, subjective and other-referent criteria are relatively salient, compared

to the objective and self-referent success criteria that are more salient in market cultures (see

Table 1, quadrants 1 and 4).

Work orientation

People appear to differ in their prime reason for working and what they most seek from the work

(Schein, 1990). For instance, research by both sociologists (e.g., Bellah et al., 1985) and psychologists

(e.g., Schwartz, 1986, 1994; Wrzesniewski et al., 1997) has shown that most people have one of three

distinct orientations to their work: seeing it primarily as either a job, a career, or a calling. The funda-

mental distinctions between these three types of work orientation are as follows.

People with a job orientation focus mainly on the financial rewards they receive for working, rather

than pleasure or fulfillment. Work is viewed as a means for acquiring the resources needed to enjoy

time away from the job, rather than as an end in itself. As the main goal of those with a job orientation

is to make an income, they do not seek many other rewards from their work (Wrzesniewski et al.,

1997).

People with a career orientation exhibit a deeper personal investment in their work. They mark their

achievements not only through monetary gain, but also through upward advancement within the occu-

pational structure where they work. Wrzesniewski (2002) observed that the overarching goal of those

who view their work as a career is to maximize their income, social status, power and prestige within

their occupation (p. 232).

Finally, people with a calling orientation strive to experience fulfillment as a result of performing

their work. Work is seen as an inherent part of life and as an end in itself, rather than merely as a means

to income or advancement. Those with a calling often feel that their work helps to make the world a

better place. For instance, hospital cleaners who view their work as the meaningful task of facilitating

the comfort and health of all who enter their hospital would probably exemplify a calling orientation

(Dutton, Debebe, & Wrzesniewski, 2000).

The usefulness of this tripartite work orientation concept has been established in several ways.

Wrzesniewski et al. (1997) demonstrated that employees in a wide range of occupations, from clerical

to professional, were unambiguous in construing their work primarily in terms of one of these three

work orientations. In addition, empirical evidence of the predicted relationship with other work-related

variables supports the construct validity of work orientation. Wrzesniewski et al. (1997) found that

having a calling was associated with the highest life and job satisfaction, and with missing the fewest

days of work. Work orientation has also been associated with how people engage in their work

(Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001), the goals people pursue in job search, as well as the nature and occu-

pational level of their new job (Wrzesniewski, 2002).

124 P. A. HESLIN


In summary, the objective outcomes of pay and advancement are respectively the prime concern of

those with either a job or a career orientation. By contrast, people with a calling are much more con-

cerned with subjective outcomes that matter most to them, such as the sense of meaning and fulfillment

they derive from their work. Rather than adopting standards of success that are guided by an organiza-

tion in which they have a job or career, those with a calling are more likely to have self-set standards

for evaluating their career. The multiple methods of assessing work orientation used by Wrzesniewski

et al. (1997) may be useful in empirical tests of:

Proposition 3: For those with a calling, subjective and self-referent criteria are more salient than

objective and other-referent criteria of career success, compared to people with either a job or a

career work orientation (see Table 1, quadrants 2 and 3).

Goal orientation

People differ in the types of goals they pursue and use to evaluate themselves. For instance, Dweck and

Elliott (1983) distinguished between performance goals, where the purpose is to demonstrate, validate,

and avoid negative judgments about ones competence, and learning goals, where the aim is to acquire

new knowledge or skills. Considerable research (e.g., Dweck & Leggett, 1988; Erdley et al., 1997;

Robins & Pals, 2002; VandeWalle, 1997) has established that a learning goal orientation is generally

based on the incremental implicit theory that ones abilities are malleable and can thus be developed

with persistent effort. On the other hand, underlying a performance goal orientation is typically the

entity implicit theory that ones abilities are largely fixed, inherent attributes that are difficult to

develop.

Dweck and Leggett (1988) reasoned that the goal orientation resulting from these two types of

implicit theories would affect the criteria people adopt to evaluate their success. Dweck and

Bempechat (1983) found that entity theorist children adopted performance goals and reported that they

felt smart when their schoolwork was error free (e.g., When I dont do mistakes) and surpassed that

of their peers (e.g., When I turn in my papers first). By contrast, children with an incremental theory

reported feeling smart when they worked on and mastered their personal learning goals (e.g., When

Im reading a hard book; When I dont know how to do it and its pretty hard and I figure it out with-

out anyone telling me). The learning orientation of those with incremental beliefs made them rela-

tively unconcerned about their performance relative to their peers.

Dweck (1999) theorized that in contrast to the personal learning goal orientation of incremental the-

orists, the self-validation concerns of entity theorists would lead them to focus more on performance

goals regarding how their presumably fixed abilities and resulting achievements compare to those of

other people. Consistent with this theory, Butler (2000) reported that when self-appraising their aca-

demic ability, compared to incremental theorists, children who were entity theorists paid more atten-

tion to their performance relative to their peers. Similarly Heslin (2003a) found that part-time MBA

students who were incremental theorists used relatively more self-referent criteria, while entity theor-

ists used comparably more other-referent criteria to evaluate their career success. However, a more

complete picture emerges from research regarding how the relationship between goal orientation

and social comparisons depends upon ones level of attainment.

Butler (1992) argued that for those with a performance goal orientation:

. . . relative outcome is perceived as the major determinant of success and satisfaction . . . however,because satisfying (performance-oriented) goals requires one to demonstrate high, rather than low

ability, interest in normative comparisons should be stronger among more competent than less com-

petent individuals. (p. 935)



Consistent with this hypothesis, Butler (1992) found that compared to those with a learning goal

orientation, sixth-grade children with a performance goal orientation paid more attention to normative

information about their performance on a divergent thinking task, particularly if they had performed

well. In addition, the performance-oriented students attributed success on this task to ego-involved

causes (relative ability, desire to outperform others, and desire to avoid doing worse than others) sig-

nificantly more than did those with a learning goal orientation. Butler concluded that performance

goal-oriented subjects who realized that they had relatively poor ability may have avoided establish-

ing how poor it was, whereas high scorers may have received hedonic satisfaction from confirming the

degree to which they were superior to others (p. 941). In a study of college students, Butler (1993)

similarly observed that high performers with a performance goal orientation strived to outperform

others and sought more normative information than either low performers with a performance goal

orientation or those with a learning goal orientationa finding that was again replicated by Butler

(1999).

In summary, Dweck (Dweck & Leggett, 1988; Dweck, 1999) theorized that people with a perfor-

mance goal orientation would be more interested in normative comparisons than those with a learning

goal orientation. Butlers (1992, 1993, 1999) evidence in this regard suggests that career research may

fruitfully explore the following proposition:

Proposition 4: Performance goal orientation is positively associated with use of other-referent cri-

teria of career success, especially by those who perceive their career as successful.2

Well-validated goal orientation scales (e.g., VandeWalle, 1997; VandeWalle, Brown, Cron, &

Slocum, 1999) are available to facilitate empirical tests of this proposition.

Career type

Work careers come in many different forms. Organizations play a large role in determining the shape

careers can take, but many authors have pointed out that careers increasingly transcend organizations

(e.g., Arthur & Rousseau, 1996; Hall, 2002). One resulting key distinction in the literature is between

linear and non-linear careers.

A linear career is focused on progressive steps upward in an organizational hierarchy to positions of

greater authority (Brousseau et al., 1996); Sturges (1999) labels this career type as climber. Brousseau

et al. (1996) observed that People who see the ideal career in linear terms often find it difficult to

imagine any other definition of success (p. 56). The zero-sum, competitive nature of linear careers

can be expected to lead people to continually assess their career attainments relative to those of other

people, such as their organizational cohort; that is, to use other-referent success criteria.

Non-linear careers encompass many other types, such as boundaryless (DeFillippi & Arthur, 1994;

Arthur & Rousseau, 1996), cosmopolitan (Gouldner, 1957), expert (Brousseau et al., 1996; Sturges,

1999), protean (Hall, 1976; Hall & Moss, 1998), transitory (Brousseau et al., 1996), or self-realizer

(Sturges, 1999) careers. These variously involve a lifelong commitment to developing a high level of

skill in a particular field or specialty, periodic shifts between related occupational areas, specialties or

disciplines, or regular changes between often seemingly unrelated careers. A commonality is often a

deeply held commitment to discovering ones personal values, before shaping a career that satisfies

these values (Brousseau et al., 1996; Sturges, 1999; Hall, 2002). Compared to traditional, organization-

ally based linear careers, those engaged in non-linear careers are much more inclined to set their own

2This proposition is not represented in Table 1, as it pertains only to self- and other-referent criteria.

126 P. A. HESLIN


career agenda and determine the yardsticks by which its success is measured. As Hall (2002) observed,

a non-linear, protean career contract is with the self and ones work (p. 34). Thus, non-linear careers

can be expected to be evaluated against more self-referent criteria than linear careers.

Linear career success is measured in terms of position in an organizational hierarchy, together with

traditional symbols of success such as a large office, accountability for many staff, and demonstrable

power to influence other people (Brousseau et al., 1996). However, it has been noted above that orga-

nizational delayering, downsizing, and outsourcing have lessened the scope (Evans et al., 1997) and

relative desirability (Hall, 2002; Reitman & Schneer, 2003) of objective success criteria such as hier-

archical progression.

Hall (2002) suggested that for those with a non-linear career, the path to the top has been replaced

by what Herb Shepard (1984) called the path with a heart. Sheppard used this term to describe success

in terms of ones unique vision and central values in life (p. 34). The resulting self-referent, subjective

criteria are likely to include a broader range of elements than those that are used to evaluate a linear

career. In contrast to the narrow concern with pay, power, and promotions that characterize linear

careers, Brousseau et al. (1996) argued that non-linear careers tend to be driven by motives to experi-

ence outcomes including personal growth, creativity, variety, and independence. Similarly, when some

people re-evaluated their linear careers in light of the September 11 tragedy, Wrzesniewski (2002)

described how their non-linear career transitions to roles such as teaching, nursing, and fire-fighting

were guided by a broader range of altruistic, subjective success criteria than they had previously held.

Thus, the following proposition is offered:

Proposition 5: Subjective and self-referent criteria are particularly salient when individuals have a

non-linear, rather than a linear career (see Table 1, quadrant 2).

Discussion

Career success research increasingly assesses both objective and subjective career outcomes, appar-

ently presuming that people define their career success in largely the same way (i.e., current salary,

promotions and job satisfaction). Consideration is rarely given to how individuals may differ in the

types of criteria they most emphasize when evaluating their careers.

This paper is intended to encourage and heuristically aid career theorists and researchers to focus on

a broader range of subjective success criteria when striving to model and assess whatever career suc-

cess means to the individuals and population(s) under consideration. The related propositions suggest

the conditions under which each of the four types of criteria illustrated in Table 1 are most likely to be

salient. Empirical testing of the propositions offered is required. The results will suggest the types of

studies in the extant career success literature that are most likely to have questionable criterion-related

and ecological validity, as a result of inattention to, for instance, participants other-referent career

success. They may also ultimately assist scholars to model and assess as much as possible of what

matters most to the focal population, while minimizing the noisy data that results from inadvertently

giving equal weighting to ratings of criteria that the people being studied consider irrelevant or rela-

tively unimportant.

Even though most people who have careers are not white, male, well-educated managers or profes-

sionals working in large, hierarchical organizations, the vast majority of careers research has been

focused on this very narrow subset of all the people who are engaged in a career (Blustein, 2001;

Sullivan, 1999). The five propositions offered in this paper are intended to be merely suggestive

of the factors that could influence the conceptualization of career success by people from diverse



educational, gender and socio-economic demographics, working in settings beyond large, profit-

oriented organizations. More theory and research is needed on what career success means to people

such as entrepreneurs, older workers, the self-employed, the physically and mentally challenged,

migrant workers, expatriates, stigmatized workers (e.g., people living with HIV), teleworkers,

the under-employed, single parents, volunteers etc. Many avenues for further enquiry can be readily

imagined.

Research agenda

Based upon the premise that organizations attract individuals who hold the values they embody (Judge

& Bretz, 1992; Schneider, 1987; Schneider et al., 2001), research could assess whether the objective

criteria of pay, promotions, and occupational status are more salient within the definition of career

success adopted by people who work for profit-based organizations, compared to those who work

for not-for-profit organizations (Steinbereithner, 2003).

Potentially relevant gender differences should also be considered. For instance, a meta-analysis by

Konrad, Ritchie, Lieb, and Corrigall (2000) revealed that men most value objective outcomes such as

money and advancement, while women tend to evaluate their career success in broader and more sub-

jective ways, using criteria such as feelings of accomplishment, growth and development, challenge in

their work, interpersonal relationships, and opportunities to help others at work. Research may use-

fully investigate individual and contextual boundary conditions on these gender differences in career

success criteria.

Broader issues raised by the propositions offered in this paper pertain to the mechanisms and con-

sequences of (a) who is chosen as a referent, (b) how organizations may strive to shape conceptions of

success, and (c) the potential role of national cultural differences.

Other-referent selection

Establishing that some people use others as a referent for evaluating their career success begs the ques-

tion of who they use as a referent. Referents may be chosen from, for instance, the same or a different

organization, business unit, department, profession, job level, industry, family, or nationality as the

focal person. While it has long been established that people use multiple referents regarding their

pay (Goodman, 1974), many questions remain about the selection and weighting of referents, espe-

cially regarding the particularly subjective facets of career success (e.g. work-life balance, contribu-

tion to society). Research is needed regarding how such choices are driven by an individuals salient

identities, as mediated by factors such as information availability and referent relevance (Kulik &

Ambrose, 1992).

Use of theoretical impetus for such research is nicely exemplified by Toh and DeNisis (2003) appli-

cation of social identity theory (Hogg & Terry, 2001) to the issue of when Host County Nationals

(HCNs) are likely to compare their pay with that received by expatriates. Toh and DeNisi reasoned

that the likelihood that HCNs will choose expatriates as referents is increased by, for instance, (a)

expatriate pay practices that differentiate HCNs and expatriates, (b) high salience of the expatriate out-

group, (c) proximity of HCNs to expatriates, as well as (d) integration of HCNs and expatriates within

the host unit. In addition, expatriates high failure rates could reflect HCNs offering them mediocre

support, as a result of the latter experiencing relative pay deprivation. This dynamic highlights the

potentially consequential nature of theory-driven research contributing to knowledge about who is

chosen as a basis for comparison when evaluating ones career success.

In addition to the contextual factors addressed by Toh and DeNisi, research may fruitfully exam-

ine how referent choice is influenced by an individuals immediate career objectives. For instance,

128 P. A. HESLIN


social comparison research has established that children and students tend to make upward compar-

isons (to those perceived as superior) when their goal is learning or development, while making

more downward comparisons (to those perceived as having achieved less) when their immediate

goal is self-enhancement (i.e., to feel successful; Wood, 1989). Do such processes occur in career

domains? Are they consciously (or otherwise) harnessed and traded-off to achieve a desired balance

between (a) feeling successful versus (b) becoming more successful, as a result adopting upward

comparisons from which career development and inspiration may be derived, albeit at the cost of

feeling not-so-successful in the immediate term? Do such self-regulatory processes differ more

between people, or the career domains in which they are applied? Can they be usefully taught

and consciously managed so that people can simultaneously optimize both their learning and their

experience of career success?

Organizational interventions

Tight labor markets for knowledge workers and other scarce human resources have stimulated interest

in creative ways to attract, motivate, and retain required talent (e.g., Kerr, 1999; Lawler & Finegold,

2000). Among these options is offering ideological rewards (Blau, 1964), such as the opportunity to

contribute to a worthwhile cause, e.g., to give unlimited opportunity to women (Mary Kay Cos-

metics), to give ordinary folks the chance to buy the same things as rich people (Wal-Mart), Eleva-

tion of the Japanese culture and national status (Sony), and To preserve and improve human life

(Merck). Based on the premise that helping to advance cherished ideals is intrinsically rewarding

(Blau, 1964, p. 239), espousal of a cause can represent a distinct inducement to elicit employee con-

tributions and commitment (Collins & Porras, 1996; Thompson & Bunderson, 2003). Research is

needed regarding how organizational proclamations about striving to benefit salient constituen-

ciessuch as the environment, the poor, the unborn, families, oppressed women, future gen-

erations, etc.potentially build and sustain devotion by nurturing members relevant subjective

criteria of career success (e.g., having made a difference)?

The prospect of stimulating the motivation, commitment, pride, loyalty and meaningfulness

felt by organizational members (Collins & Porras, 1996)perhaps even in lieu of adequate tradi-

tional inducements (e.g., pay)provides a powerful incentive for organizations to encourage the

adoption of ideologically infused subjective criteria of career success. Thompson and Bunderson

(2003, p. 574) define ideological currency as credible commitments to pursue a valued cause or

principle (not limited to self-interest) that are implicitly exchanged at the nexus of the indivi-

dualorganizational relationship. Thompson and Bunderson also outline mechanisms whereby

the creation of ideological currency may backfire (e.g., result in moral outrage) when organizations

are perceived to have violated their ideological commitments (e.g., to help the needy, protect the

environment).

How do such incidents affect the construal and experience of career success by organizational mem-

bers? Under what circumstances do people respond by altering their personal career success criteria

versus their organizational commitment/membership? Does the salience of personal values to those

with a career orientation, rather than a job or work orientation (Wrzesniewski et al., 1997), make

the former particularly likely to adopt ideologically based career success criteria and/or be particularly

sensitive to perceived ideological breeches by their employer? Does the primacy of normative, perso-

nal victories make ideological currency a less salient criterion of career success in winner-take-all mar-

kets than in other contexts? Research addressing such questions will suggest when people are likely to

adopt ideology-infused criteria of career success. It may also ultimately inform initiatives aimed at

fostering ideologically based psychological contracts and organizational commitment, without incur-

ring the strife associated with creating expectations that an organization is unwilling or unable to meet

(Thompson & Bunderson, 2003).



Cultural differences

Although national cultural differences have a pervasive influence upon how people approach and eval-

uate their work (Triandis, 1994; Hofstede, 2001), they have been largely neglected in the careers lit-

erature (Brown, 2002; Spokane, Fouad, & Swanson, 2003). The potential for cultural differences to

moderate the propositions offered in this paper is exemplified by Browns (2002, p. 53) call for

research to test the proposition that:

The primary bases for job satisfaction for people with an individualism social value in order of

importance will be (1) the congruence between the values reinforced on the job and individuals

work values; (2) conflicts that occur between the career role and other life roles; and (3) the

approval of the work roles by others such as parents, spouses, and friends. Job satisfaction for peo-

ple with a collective social value will be, in order of importance, (1) the extent to which the work

role is approved by significant others such as parents, spouses, and friends; (2) conflicts between the

career role and other life roles; and (3) the congruence between the values reinforced by the job and

individuals work values.

Do other-referent criteria of career success, such as evaluating ones attainments in terms of other

peoples expectations and group achievements, figure more prominently in collectivist than individu-

alist cultural contexts? Do people in being-oriented (Adler, 2002) or feminine (Hofstede, 2001) cul-

turesthat give primacy to relationships, harmony, and balanceuse more subjective and less

objective criteria of career success than those in more doing-oriented (Adler, 2002) or masculine

(Hofstede, 2001) cultures? Empirical tests of these propositions may elucidate how cultural values

place boundary conditions on the propositions summarized in Table 1, as well as on the cross-cultural

generalizability of the primarily U.S.-centric career success literature.

Implications for measurement

Context matters! (Blustein, 1997; Higgins, 2001; Johns, 2001). It is anticipated that research stemming

from the present propositions and related research agenda will yield broad heuristics, rather than firm

prescriptions, about how best to measure career success within a particular context. Preliminary heur-

istics include (a) use relevant theory and research to guide the exploration of what matters most to

study participants, (b) ask the focal population how they know (or anticipate that they will judge)

the extent to which their career is successful, (c) assess participants on, for instance, the 710 criteria

they identify as most salient, and (d) ensure that each criterion assessed (e.g., promotions relative to

peers) is valued and relevant to those surveyed. Research is needed to test, refine, and extend these

measurement suggestions. For instance, it may be fruitful to explore the utility of weighting success

criteria by their rated importance to the overall career success of the person being surveyed. While this

approach should be fairly straightforward in the context of one-on-one career coaching, it would com-

plicate the assessment, scoring, and comparability of responses when a group of individuals is sur-

veyed simultaneously.

Depending on the purpose of measuring career success, researchers and practitioners alike should

carefully trade-off the issues of (a) fidelity to how each individual conceptualizes her or his career, (b)

utilization of theory and findings regarding factors that influence the selection of different types of

criteria, and (c) the efficiency and parsimony of the prevailing approach of assessing everyone relative

to the same, standardized success criteria. This paper will have succeeded if it prompts reflection on

the relative merits of these three considerations, when theorizing about and empirically assessing

career success.

130 P. A. HESLIN


Conclusion

Career success potentially means much more to people engaged in a career than has typically been

measured by empirical research on this topic. The resulting criterion deficiency has probably dimin-

ished the validity with which many career theories, models, and intervention programs have been

assessed. Similarly, the criterion-related validity of research on the antecedents of career success is

likely to have been bounded by the extent to which study participants define their career success in

terms other than the generally narrow, self-referent operationalization of this construct adopted in most

studies. Thus, advances in the conceptualization and operationalization of career success may enhance

theory building and research aimed at understanding, predicting, and facilitating the experience of

career success.

Acknowledgements

An earlier version of this paper was presented in P. A. Heslin and H. P. Gunz (Chairs), Unpacking and

reconceptualizing career success, a symposium conducted at the annual meeting of the Academy of

Management, Denver, Colorado, August 2002. The author thanks Michael Arthur, Martin Evans, Hugh

Gunz, Tim Hall, Denise Rousseau, and John Slocum for their helpful comments on earlier drafts of this

manuscript.

Author biography

Peter A. Heslin is Assistant Professor of Management at the Cox School of Business, Southern

Methodist University, Dallas, Texas, U.S.A. He received his PhD in Organizational Behavior and

Human Resource Management from the Rotman School of Management, University of Toronto,

Canada. His current research is focused on feedback, coaching, and career success, as well as the nat-

ure and consequences of implicit theories about the malleability of personal attributes.

References

Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental socialpsychology (Vol. 2, pp. 267299). New York: Academic Press.

Adler, N. (2002). International dimensions of organizational behavior. Cincinnati: South-Western.Arnett, J. J. (2000). High hopes in a grim world: emerging adults view of their futures and Generation X. Youthand Society, 31, 267286.

Aronsson, G., Bejerot, E., & Haerenstam, A. (1999). Healthy work: ideal and reality among public and privateemployed academics in Sweden. Public Personnel Management, 28, 197215.

Arthur, M. B., & Rousseau, D. M. (1996). Introduction: the boundaryless career as a new employment principle. InM. B. Arthur, & D. M. Rousseau (Eds.), The boundaryless career (pp. 320). New York: Oxford UniversityPress.



Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Bandura, A. (1997). Self efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.Bellah, R. N., Madsen, R., Sullivan, W. M., Swidler, A., & Tipton, S. M. (1985). Habits of the heart: Individualismand commitment in American life. New York: Harper & Row.

Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley.Blustein, D. L. (1997). A context-rich perspective of career exploration across the life roles. Career DevelopmentQuarterly, 45, 260274.

Blustein, D. L. (2001). Extending the reach of vocational psychology: toward an inclusive and integratedpsychology of working. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 59, 171182.

Boudreau, J. W., Boswell, W. R., & Judge, T. A. (2001). Effects of personality on executive career success in theUnited States and Europe. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 58, 5381.

Brooks, M. E., Grauer, E., Thornbury, E. E., & Highhouse, S. (2003). Value differences between scientists andpractitioners: a survey of SIOP members. The Industrial-Organizational Psychologist, 40, 1723.

Brousseau, K. R., Driver, M. J., Eneroth, K., & Larsson, R. (1996). Career pandemonium: realigning organizationsand individuals. Academy of Management Executive, 10, 5266.

Brown, D. (2002). The role of work and cultural values in occupational choice, satisfaction, and success: atheoretical statement. Journal of Counseling and Development, 80, 4856.

Burke, R. J. (1999). Career success and personal failure feelings among managers. Psychological Reports, 84,651653.

Butler, R. (1992). What young people want to know when: effects of mastery and ability goals on interest indifferent kinds of social comparisons. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 934943.

Butler, R. (1993). Effects of task- and ego-achievement goals on information seeking during task engagement.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 1831.

Butler, R. (1999). Information seeking and achievement motivation in middle childhood and adolescence: the roleof conceptions of ability. Developmental Psychology, 35, 146163.

Butler, R. (2000). Making judgments about ability: the role of implicit theories of ability in moderating inferencesfrom temporal and social comparison information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 965978.

Campbell, J. P., Dunnette, M. D., Lawler, E. E., & Weick, K. E. (1970). Managerial behavior, performance andeffectiveness. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Cangemi, J. P., & Guttschalk, G. E. (1986). What employees really want from their jobs. Psychology: A Journal ofHuman Behavior, 23, 5761.

Cappelli, P. (1999). The new deal at work: Managing the market-driven workforce. Boston, MA: Harvard BusinessSchool Press.

Chartrand, J. M., & Rose, M. L. (1996). Career interventions for at-risk populations: incorporating social cognitiveinfluences. Career Development Quarterly, 44, 341354.

Chenevert, D., & Tremblay, M. (2002). Managerial career success in Canadian organizations: is gender adeterminant? International Journal of Human Resource Management, 13, 920942.

Cochran, L. R. (1990). The sense of vocation: A study of career and life development. Albany, NY: StateUniversity of New York Press.

Collins, J. C., & Porras, J. I. (1996). Building your companys vision, Harvard Business Review, SeptemberOctober, 6577.

DeFillippi, R. J., & Arthur, M. B. (1994). The boundaryless career: a competency-based perspective. Journal ofOrganizational Behavior, 15, 307324.

Dobrow, S. (2003). Following their hearts? Subjective career orientations and career-related outcomes in youngclassical musicians. In P. A. Heslin (Chair), What more is there to career success? Symposium conducted at theannual meeting of the Academy of Management, Seattle, WA, August 2003.

Dutton, J. E., Debebe, G., & Wrzesniewski, A. (2000). A social valuing perspective on relationship sensemaking.Working paper, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

Dweck, C. S. (1999). Self-theories: Their role in motivation, personality, and development. Philadelphia, PA:Psychology Press.

Dweck, C. S., & Bempechat, J. (1983). Childrens theories of intelligence. In S. Paris, G. Olsen, & H. Stevenson(Eds.), Learning and motivation in the classroom (pp. 239256). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Dweck, C. S., & Elliott, E. S. (1983). Achievement motivation. In P. H. Mussen (Gen. Ed.) & E. M. Hetherington(Vol. Ed.), Handbook of child psychology. Social and personality development (Vol. IV, pp. 643691).New York: Wiley.

Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality. PsychologicalReview, 95, 256272.

132 P. A. HESLIN


Erdley, C. A., Loomis, C. C., Cain, K. M., Dumas-Hines, F., & Dweck, C. S. (1997). Relations among childrenssocial goals, implicit personality theories, and responses to social failure. Developmental Psychology, 33, 263272.

Evans, M. G., Gunz, H. P., & Jalland, R. M. (1997). Implications of organizational downsizing for managerialcareers. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 14, 359371.

Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7, 117140.Finegold, D., & Mohrman, S. A. (2001). What do employees really want? The perception vs. the reality. Paper

presented at the annual meeting of the World Economic Forum, Davos, Switzerland.Frank, R. H., & Cook, P. J. (1995). The winner-take-all society: How more and more Americans compete for fewerand bigger prizes, encouraging economic waste, income inequality, and an impoverished cultural life. NewYork: Free Press.

Friedman, S. D., & Greenhaus, J. H. (2000). Allies or enemies? How choices about work and family affect thequality of mens and womens lives. New York: Oxford University Press.

Gattiker, U. E., & Larwood, L. (1988). Predictors for managers career mobility, success, and satisfaction. HumanRelations, 41, 569591.

Goodman, P. S. (1974). An examination of referents used in the evaluation of pay. Organizational Behavior andHuman Performance, 12, 170195.

Gouldner, A. W. (1957). Cosmopolitans and locals: toward an analysis of latent social roles. AdministrativeScience Quarterly, 2, 281306.

Greenhaus, J. H. (2003). Career dynamics. In W. C. Borman, D. R. Ilgen, & R. J. Klimoski (Eds.), Comprehensivehandbook of psychology. Industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 12, pp. 519540). New York:Wiley.

Greenhaus, J. H., Callanan, G. A., & Godshalk, V. M. (2000). Career management (3rd ed.). Fort Worth, TX:Dryden Press.

Greenhaus, J. H., Parasuraman, S., & Wormley, W. (1990). Effects of race on organizational experiences, jobperformance evaluations, and career outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, 33, 6486.

Griffeth, R. W., & Gaertner, S. (2001). A role for equity theory in the turnover process: an empirical test. Journalof Applied Social Psychology, 31, 10171037.

Hall, D. T. (1976). Careers in organizations. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.Hall, D. T. (2002). Careers in and out of organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Hall, D. T., & Moss, J. E. (1998). The new protean career contract: helping organizations and employees adapt.Organizational Dynamics, 26, 2237.

Hartung, P. J., & Blustein, D. L. (2002). Reason, intuition, and social justice: elaborating on Parsons careerdecision-making model. Journal of Counseling and Development, 80, 4148.

Heath, C., Larrick, R. P., & Wen, G. (1999). Goals as reference points. Cognitive Psychology, 38, 79109.Heslin, P. A. (2003a). Self- and other-referent criteria of career success. Journal of Career Assessment, 11, 262

286.Heslin, P. A. (2003b). CEO career success as perceived value-added. In P. A. Heslin (Chair), What more is there tocareer success? Symposium conducted at the annual meeting of the Academy of Management, Seattle, WA,August 2003.

Higgins, M. C. (2001). Changing careers: the effects of social context. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22,

heslin_2005_

Documents

subjective career success

subsequent career success

antecedents of career

career literature

career hall

introductioncareer success

success criterion

areas of career scholarship